Use of the term "dogma"In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Crick wrote about his choice of the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him: I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth.... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.Similarly, Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation:[6] "My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."
Great start for building our cell, but we need to have complete eukaryotic cell to begin our discussion on evolution as defined as a change in gene frequencies over time.So, we need someone to build some mitochondria, ribosomes, nucleosomes, our lipid cell membrane, our Golgi apparatus and the rest of the essentials of a single celled eukaryote that will be able to evolve. So, let's get the entire cell together to make sure it has all of the correct parts to survive.Any volunteers to start building our cell?
From Wikipedia:QuoteUse of the term "dogma"In his autobiography, What Mad Pursuit, Crick wrote about his choice of the word dogma and some of the problems it caused him: I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful. ... As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth.... Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.Similarly, Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation:[6] "My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."But, I have a problem with stating that this is the starting point of evolutionary theory. For more about the core theory of evolution, the Wikipedia entry is a good starting point.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theoryAnd in reference to going back from the eukaryotic cell, Peter you posted this:QuoteGreat start for building our cell, but we need to have complete eukaryotic cell to begin our discussion on evolution as defined as a change in gene frequencies over time.So, we need someone to build some mitochondria, ribosomes, nucleosomes, our lipid cell membrane, our Golgi apparatus and the rest of the essentials of a single celled eukaryote that will be able to evolve. So, let's get the entire cell together to make sure it has all of the correct parts to survive.Any volunteers to start building our cell?True, the video links you posted are not from the creationist viewpoint, but I maintain that you are throwing up a smoke screen for these reasons:1. Cells ARE complex. You intimate that there is much not known about how they developed. Possibly true, but there is also much known. 2. Even those things that may still be unknown are in no way a proof that they could not have evolved.3. The discussion of evolution is completely different than the discussion of the origins of life. Saying that "someone" had to build the cells that are under discussion has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with creationism. Respectfully,Aleta
Please pardon my ignorance but are there still people in America who doubt any theory of evolution? I understand the debate on theories (no, I don't understand them but rather I understand why do you them) but not, in this day and age, whether? Can someone recommend a primer for me? I hate conversations that I can't understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2BVfPv2xNUHere's # 20
Dear PeterI wish you all the best in your quest to disprove the rather considerable body of knowledge that has accumulated to support the theory of evolution. In the interest of fair disclosure, let me be the first to point out that I am not a biologist, nor am I a chemist, a physicist, a geologist or an astronomist. What I do think I know is that the preponderance of those folks who have spent their lives pursuing scientific discoveries , including a fair number of christians, accept that this body of knowledge is important although as yet incomplete. I also find it curious that while science sets out to continuously overthrow old ideas in favour of new ones, this is after all how young scientists make a name for themselves, the theory of evolution has gained more traction, not less, in the past 150 years. This growth in knowledge and acceptance is not based on faith nor is it founded on dogma although I think I understand that in your view it is.I wish you all the best Peter and I would respectfully suggest that you direct your energy and passion about the errors and fallacies of evolutionary science to those men and women, the practicing scientists, who would be in better positions to debate the details with you. Could you for example refute the points that you refute here and present them to scientific journals for publication. I confess that I'm gobsmacked by the young earth creationist view of the world and will continue to take my chances with the scientific method as it seems to me more likely to result in a fuller understanding of our physical selves and of our environment.
Can we get back to the discussion of evolution instead of how a cell works?I thought we'd agreed on a starting point of a single eukaryotic cell. How this cell arrived should be irrelevant to the discussion. My view is that it evolved from simpler life forms; I indicated the major changes that would have to evolve to result in the cell — more changes than needed to progress from a single cell to man. Moreover the time for evolution to the eukaryote is over four times as long as from the first eukaryote to man.On the other hand, Hemodoc would have it that the eukaryote was created, because it is so complex.Can we keep the arguments to the development from the first eukaryote to man? There's enough there to give Hemodoc a bit of a headache to explain. The most significant difference between evolution and creation is that evolution does not have an objective whereas creation implies that the creator does. Moreover, the Bible makes man the epitome of creation, so we would expect all living things between eukaryotes and man to support the creation of man.Viruses need explanation. Viruses have no reproduction mechanism of their own; they hijack that of other cells. Other life forms have mechanisms to kill off viruses once they have been infected (although they do not always work). So why did the creator create viruses only to have to create mechanisms to kill them off in other life forms?Hemodoc maintains that complexity is indicative of a creator. I take the opposite view: complexity is indicative of evolution. Look at the skeleton of birds and mammals. All are nearly the same but pulled and stretched to some extent. They have the same set of bones. Bird or beast, they are basically the same but the complexity allows the differences. A designer on the other hand creates a design that is optimized to do what's intended. A designer doesn't take a railway engine and modify it to make it into an airplane. No, he designs an airplane from the start to fly.Well, there's two issues that need explanation; I'm sure others can think of more.
Oh, I see. I think.You didn't want to start with the Eukaryote after all. You want to start with the RNA world from which prokaryotes, mitochondria, chloroplasts etc evolved eventually to form the first eukaryotes. That is, the eukaryote is the end of the discussion about evolution, not the start. Am I right this time?I take it you don't want to explain the existance of viruses eh?
I Hate Dialysis Message Board
I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Author
